One of the hallmarks of polytheistic religion is how close the Gods are to humans. The Gods are usually just extremely powerful, wise humans. There is also always some kind of higher law above them that they cannot escape.

The Greek Gods were slaves to fate. The Norse Gods could not stop the coming of ragnarok (at least after the Norse were exposed to Christian apocalyptic thought). Most striking of all, the Hindu Gods were stuck dealing with karma and the cycle of death and rebirth.

Call this “the highest law,” or if you want to be pretentious, the “meta-divine realm.”

In theory, there is no “highest law” in Christianity. God is the ultimate and not bound by any restrictions. The danger here is practical: people might begin focusing on the highest law. This is what happened with Hinduism. Hinduism spawned many different sects that sought ways to escape the wheel of life and rebirth without the aid of the Gods, including Buddhism.

Let’s say that there is a highest law, which we will call the “law of purity.” God’s purity is absolute, and He cannot tolerate impurity. God’s nature is such that impure beings are forced away from him, the way that like poles of magnets repel each other. Therefor, impure beings cannot enter heaven, and instead are sent to hell. This is one of the ways that I’ve heard it explained.

If this is the case, then God is not omnipotent. The laws governing purity are more powerful than He and He cannot alter them. He can attempt to work within the rules of the purity system by sacrificing his son and thereby making everyone who believes in Him pure. But he cannot simply declare that everyone is pure, or change the rules of purity so that impure beings are no longer repelled.

If this is the case, then perhaps humans would be better off focusing their attention on the law of purity. We could make an end run around God, defeating the system of purity the way that Buddhists attempt to remove themselves from the wheel of death and rebirth.

This was one of Pulliam’s specialties, and his article is filled with the logical flaws that scholars have found in the PST. But I can’t help feeling that the logical problems are only half of the story.

The PST is most popular among the evangelicals, and Evangelical Christianity is at least partially emotional. Less so than the Pentecostals, but much more than the staid main-line protestants that the evangelicals replaced in America. There’s definitely a stream of emotionalism running through evangelical culture, from the revival to the personal relationship with Jesus.

While the PST can be expressed in a bloodless way, by talking about justification and propitiation, it’s usually heard as an emotional appeal. Jesus died for YOUR sins. Jesus was humiliated, tortured and died just for YOU. That hits the guilt buttons pretty hard.

I think most people are familiar with the feeling of not measuring up. We’re all aware that we’re not perfect, and I suspect that most of us harbor that little pocket of guilt over things we’ve said and done. The PST plays on that guilt and offers the release of redemption.

Logic won’t do much here. Maybe the best way to defang the PST on emotional grounds is to ask what was really sacrificed? What does a days worth of suffering matter to an immortal being? And can a being that transcends humanity really suffer like a human?

Most of all, I think we have to point out that Jesus went in with no uncertainty about his eventual fate. Unlike us limited mortals, Jesus could know that there was a heaven, a God, salvation and the whole nine yards. Even if he “emptied himself” and thus did not know the eventual time of the apocalypse, surely he knew that he was part of the trinity and that a place beside God’s throne was awaiting him.

If you are a Christian, you want to share the best thing that ever happened to you with your friends. After all, you care about your friends, and you don’t what them to go to hell… right? This app was designed to make sharing Jesus with them as easy as showing them your phone.

Just choose a title that looks like its subject might be a good discussion starter, show them how to turn the pages, and hand the phone over!

Chick tracts never pull punches… they deliver the truth head-on! Get some great conversation going now. Your friends will thank you for it. Don’t worry if they start asking questions (they probably will). Use the “More Info” menu item to see articles that give you lots more information.

Atheists and skeptics now have equal access to our children as we have, which is why the number of Christian youth who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity is decreasing and sexual immorality is growing, apologist Josh McDowell said.

[...]

“The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have… whether you like it or not,” said McDowell, who is author of two books on Christian apologetics, More than a Carpenter and New Evidence that Demands Verdict.

The internet: turning children into atheists and skeptics since the early 90s.

“Now here is the problem,” said McDowell, “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”

I get what he’s saying. I think all of us realize that using the internet can be like drinking from a firehose. There’s so much information out there that it can be hard to know what’s real. Dealing with that everyday is going to make anyone more skeptical. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

To McDowell it is. Anything that lead to questioning the revealed truth of evangelical protestant Christianity is definitely a bad thing in his book. But he’s savvy enough to realize that you can’t completely shield your kids, at least not without going full fundy. So he advocates three things, the first two are hard to argue with: live up to your own ideals and have a good relationship with your kids.

The third thing is knowledge. Christians need to “arm yourselves to answer your children’s and grandchildren’s questions.” Not bad on the surface, but the cynic in me thinks that translates to “buy my books!”

The Christian argument for a personal god is the perfect example of a non-sequitur argument. They explain that at the moment of the Big Bang there must have been a “First Cause” that created the universe. The only explanation they can provide for this lack of knowledge is god. We may never know what happened at the first moment, but many models have been used to derive theories for it. Some explain it as a singularity and others claim that we are just part of a multi-verse, but it is clear that the Biblical representation is not accurate. Science is working hard to answer these difficult answers; religion claims to know the answer. Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have conceded the fact that god created the universe. How can atheists be so arrogant to believe that this genius was wrong? The real question is how can Christians be so ignorant to confuse the words of a man that denounced the idea of a personal god.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein and many others have stood in awe as they observed the beauty of the universe. Many physicists have mentioned god when speaking about the beginning of the universe, but their definition of god is different than the monotheistic personal god. The underlying principles that govern the universe are consistent throughout the known universe. The rate of expansion is consistent, the cosmic background radiation is consistent, and Einstein’s general theory of relativity provides consistent and precise predictions about the known universe. These principles have been tested and verified numerous times and this is why we have the Big Bang theory. If one were to call these underlying principles god then many would accept this claim, even atheists have been known to concede to this definition of god. How does this concession lead to a personal god? Here comes the non-sequitur! Because the universe was created, Jesus must be the savior of all mankind and all those that don’t believe will go to hell! WTF!!

These are two separate claims and a concession to the first claim doesn’t provide evidence for the second claim. The second claim goes beyond the underlying principles that govern our universe and seeks to prove a personal god. This claim must be supported by evidence that shows undeniably that one god listens to all of mankind’s prayers and has the ability to answer them. Since we know the criteria required to support this claim it is possible to test it. The Bible has many promises that this personal god has endowed upon believers. The Bible’s main promise states that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven; conveniently, this promise can’t be proven or disproven, but many others can.

The Bible promises god will answer prayers, but what about the millions of unanswered prayers? If god chooses to answer one prayer then he has the ability to answer them all. If a prayer doesn’t get answered then there are only two possible explanations: 1)god chose not to answer it 2) god doesn’t exist so he can’t answer it. If god chose not to answer the prayer then he is no longer perfect because he didn’t fulfill his promise, which means he no longer exists. Either way this personal god is invalidated. Many people pray and see very inconsistent results. Out of 100 prayers they might see 10 fulfilled; these odds would convince most to get up and leave the card table, but Christians find millions of reasons to justify them when it pertains to god. Shouldn’t god deliver 100% odds; either he is very inconsistent or nonexistent. If something can be done without god’s help then why waste the effort of asking for it?

If god is all-powerful then why did he create deadly genetic disorders that evolve?

Why does he allow innocent people to die every day as their families pray for healing?

How can a just god sit back and watch people in pain as he ignores the cries of his people?

This doesn’t sound like the almighty, loving god that Christians preach about, but these are the observations reality provides. All of the evidence refutes the existence of a personal god. It is more beneficial to analyze the evidence than spend a lifetime ignoring it to hold onto one’s failed belief system.

For example, he argues that the punishments for crimes found in the Hebrew Testament aren’t that brutal when you understand what the text is really saying, and he’s prepared to use dicey translations and claims that metaphorical language is being used in order to make that argument.

Then he’s prepared to argue that the other culture in the ancient Near East were worse, as if God should be graded on a curve.

Then, towards the end of the book, he retreats to William Lane Craig’s argument that morality comes from God, so who are we to complain?

The result is less than the sum of its parts. Any one line of this argument, followed to its end, would have been more effective than the mass of arguments.

Craig has been accused of this kind of argumentation as well, but Craig is a debater. In a debate, throwing out more arguments than your opponent can respond to will score points. In a book, I think it looks weak.

But then, the point of apologetics is to insulate the Christian reader from doubts. The argument doesn’t have to work, it just has to sound good.

(BTW, contra Christina, I would not label Craig a “respected theologian.” He’s an apologist for a narrow tradition of Reformed Evangelical Christianity that includes such creedal beliefs as biblical innerancy and subsitutionary atonement. Theologians define the faith, apologists defend it.)

As with most apologists, Craig’s real audience are the Christians who are beset with doubt or some other problem within their tradition. In this case, Craig is dealing with the question of the atrocities and genocide committed by the Hebrews in the OT. As part of his response, Craig argues that there is no real moral problem with all of it, as a result of his divine command theory of morality.

It basically comes down to a few points:

1. Morality comes from God.
2. Since God does not issue moral commands to himself, all actions by God are outside of morality.
3. Our moral duty is to follow God’s command.
4. So God deciding to take the lives of the Canaanites is fine, since God is outside of morality. The Israelites committing atrocities is fine, since they were following God’s orders.

Like a lot of Craig’s arguments, this one fits together quite neatly. Like a lot of his arguments, you can poke some substantial holes in it, such as: is it really objective morality if it is based on the whim of a divine being? PZ Myers and Ed Brayton both deal with this and other problems.

Another problem is more practical, and it comes down to Deacon Duncan’s Undeniable Fact, “The Undeniable Fact is that God does not show up in real life. [...] The Inescapable Consequence of this Undeniable Fact is that anyone who wishes to talk about God can only speak of the things men say and think and feel and imagine.”

Since God doesn’t appear before us, everything we know about God comes from what people say, or what we ourselves feel about God. The problems with trusting divine authority that comes from human mouths or our own intuitions should be obvious. If it’s not, Greta brings up the example of the Lafferty brothers.

This is a selection from Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven, his examination of the Church of Latter Day Saints and his report on Dan and Ron Lafferty, two Mormon fundamentalists who murdered their sister-in-law and her baby. Here Krakauer is talking to Dan Lafferty after his conviction, and comparing Dan to the 9/11 terrorists:

What about Osama’s underlings, the holy warriors who sacrificed their lives for Allah by flying jumbo jets into the World Trade Center? Surely their faith and conviction were every bit as powerful as Dan’s. Does he think the sincerity of their belief justified the act? And if not, how can Dan know that what he did isn’t every bit as misguided as what bin Laden’s followers did on September 11, despite the obvious sincerity of his own faith?

As he pauses to consider this possibility, there comes a moment when a shadow of doubt seems to flicker across his mien. But only for an instant, and then it’s gone. “I have to admit, the terrorists were following their prophet,” Dan says. “They were willing to do essentially what I did. I see the parallel. But the difference between those guys and me is, they were following a false prophet, and I’m not.

“I believe I’m a good person,” Dan insists. “I’ve never done anything intentionally wrong. I never have. At times when I’ve started to wonder if maybe what I did was a terrible mistake, I’ve looked back and asked myself, ”What would I have done differently? Did I feel God’s hand guiding me on the twenty-fourth of July 1984?“ And then I remember very clearly, ”Yes, I was guided by the hand of God.“ So I know I did the right thing. Christ says, ”If you want to know if something is true, believe. And I’ll help you know the truth.“ And that’s what he did with me.

“I’m sure God knows I love Him. It’s my belief that everything will work out, and there will be a happy ending to this whole strange experience. I’ve just had too many little glimpses through the thin fabric of this reality to believe otherwise. Even when I have tried not to believe, I can’t.” (pp. 320-321)

The bothers were incited by their prophet, Robert Crossfield, their inner witness (see Dan’s line about the hand of God) and their own internal convictions that this murder was the will of God. The problem is merely that they were wrong about what God wanted. By Craig’s logic, this was a mistake, not a murder.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Alright, pet peeve. I’ll make this quick.

Writing “OMG” is not taking the Lord’s name in vain.

First off, “God” is not a name. God is a description or a title. The god of the Hebrews gives his name to Moses through the burning bush.

Second, taking the lord’s name in vain – or making “wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God” (NRSV) – does not mean simply using the name YHWH or the title of God.

All ancient cultures used the names of their gods in promises, oaths and contracts. An ancient Israelite might make an oath, invoking Yahweh to watch over him and make sure he fulfilled his promise.

Sometimes it meant placing God as the judge over an agreement, such as between the Jacob and Laban in Genesis 31:41 – “The Lord watch between you and me, when we are absent one from the other.” In other words, Jacob is reminding his scheming uncle that their god is watching over them and will know if Laban breaks the agreement. (Given Jacob’s track record as a trickster, this seems a bit hypocritical.)

One way or another, making an oath that you did not intend to keep would be a wrongful use of the name of God. So the commandment is basically a warning not to make false oaths. It might also be stretched to mean not breaking your promises.

And I’m sorry, but this has been recognized by every serious religious authority I’ve ever met. If Comfort and Crew don’t know, it doesn’t speak well of them.